Related
Given an array of integers which are needed to be split into four
boxes such that sum of XOR's of the boxes is maximum.
I/P -- [1,2,1,2,1,2]
O/P -- 9
Explanation: Box1--[1,2]
Box2--[1,2]
Box3--[1,2]
Box4--[]
I've tried using recursion but failed for larger test cases as the
Time Complexity is exponential. I'm expecting a solution using dynamic
programming.
def max_Xor(b1,b2,b3,b4,A,index,size):
if index == size:
return b1+b2+b3+b4
m=max(max_Xor(b1^A[index],b2,b3,b4,A,index+1,size),
max_Xor(b1,b2^A[index],b3,b4,A,index+1,size),
max_Xor(b1,b2,b3^A[index],b4,A,index+1,size),
max_Xor(b1,b2,b3,b4^A[index],A,index+1,size))
return m
def main():
print(max_Xor(0,0,0,0,A,0,len(A)))
Thanks in Advance!!
There are several things to speed up your algorithm:
Build in some start-up logic: it doesn't make sense to put anything into box 3 until boxes 1 & 2 are differentiated. In fact, you should generally have an order of precedence to keep you from repeating configurations in a different order.
Memoize your logic; this avoids repeating computations.
For large cases, take advantage of what value algebra exists.
This last item may turn out to be the biggest saving. For instance, if your longest numbers include several 5-bit and 4-bit numbers, it makes no sense to consider shorter numbers until you've placed those decently in the boxes, gaining maximum advantage for the leading bits. With only four boxes, you cannot have a num from 3-bit numbers that dominates a single misplaced 5-bit number.
Your goal is to place an odd number of 5-bit numbers into 3 or all 4 boxes; against this, check only whether this "pessimizes" bit 4 of the remaining numbers. For instance, given six 5-digit numbers (range 16-31) and a handful of small ones (0-7), your first consideration is to handle only combinations that partition the 5-digit numbers by (3, 1, 1, 1), as this leaves that valuable 5-bit turned on in each set.
With a more even mixture of values in your input, you'll also need to consider how to distribute the 4-bits for a similar "keep it odd" heuristic. Note that, as you work from largest to smallest, you need worry only about keeping it odd, and watching the following bit.
These techniques should let you prune your recursion enough to finish in time.
We can use Dynamic programming here to break the problem into smaller sets then store their result in a table. Then use already stored result to calculate answer for bigger set.
For example:
Input -- [1,2,1,2,1,2]
We need to divide the array consecutively into 4 boxed such that sum of XOR of all boxes is maximised.
Lets take your test case, break the problem into smaller sets and start solving for smaller set.
box = 1, num = [1,2,1,2,1,2]
ans = 1 3 2 0 1 3
Since we only have one box so all numbers will go into this box. We will store this answer into a table. Lets call the matrix as DP.
DP[1] = [1 3 2 0 1 3]
DP[i][j] stores answer for distributing 0-j numbers to i boxes.
now lets take the case where we have two boxes and we will take numbers one by one.
num = [1] since we only have one number it will go into the first box.
DP[1][0] = 1
Lets add another number.
num = [1 2]
now there can be two ways to put this new number into the box.
case 1: 2 will go to the First box. Since we already have answer
for both numbers in one box. we will just use that.
answer = DP[0][1] + 0 (Second box is empty)
case 2: 2 will go to second box.
answer = DP[0][0] + 2 (only 2 is present in the second box)
Maximum of the two cases will be stored in DP[1][1].
DP[1][1] = max(3+0, 1+2) = 3.
Now for num = [1 2 1].
Again for new number we have three cases.
box1 = [1 2 1], box2 = [], DP[0][2] + 0
box1 = [1 2], box2 = [1], DP[0][1] + 1
box1 = [1 ], box2 = [2 1], DP[0][0] + 2^1
Maximum of these three will be answer for DP[1][2].
Similarly we can find answer of num = [1 2 1 2 1 2] box = 4
1 3 2 0 1 3
1 3 4 6 5 3
1 3 4 6 7 9
1 3 4 6 7 9
Also note that a xor b xor a = b. you can use this property to get xor of a segment of an array in constant time as suggested in comments.
This way you can break the problem in smaller subset and use smaller set answer to compute for the bigger ones. Hope this helps. After understanding the concept you can go ahead and implement it with better time than exponential.
I would go bit by bit from the highest bit to the lowest bit. For every bit, try all combinations that distribute the still unused numbers that have that bit set so that an odd number of them is in each box, nothing else matters. Pick the best path overall. One issue that complicates this greedy method is that two boxes with a lower bit set can equal one box with the next higher bit set.
Alternatively, memoize the boxes state in your recursion as an ordered tuple.
I was looking over the solution to this problem here, and I didn't quite understand how the dynamic programming (DP) worked.
A summary of the problem is as follows: You are given a 9x9 grid of either ones or zeroes, arranged in nine 3x3 subgrids as follows:
000 000 000
001 000 100
000 000 000
000 110 000
000 111 000
000 000 000
000 000 000
000 000 000
000 000 000
You need to find the minimum number of changes needed so that each of the nine rows, columns, and 3x3 subgrids contain an even number of 1's. Here, a change is defined as toggling a given element from 1 to 0 or vice-versa.
The solution involves dynamic programming, and each state consists of the minimum number of moves such that all rows up to the current row being look at have even parity (even number of ones).
However, I do not understand the details of their implementation. First off, in their memoization array
int memo[9][9][1<<9][1<<3][2];
what do each of the indexes represent? I gathered that the first two are for current row and column, the third is for column parity, the fourth is for subgrid parity, and the fifth is for row parity. However, why does the column parity need 2^9 elements whereas row parity needs only 2?
Next, how are the transitions between the states handled? I would assume that you go across the row trying each element and moving to the next row when done, but after seeing their code I am quite confused
int& ref = memo[r][c][mc][mb][p];
/* Try setting the cell to 1. */
ref = !A[r][c] + solve(r, c + 1, mc ^ 1 << c, mb ^ 1 << c / 3, !p);
/* Try setting the cell to 0. */
ref = min(ref, A[r][c] + solve(r, c + 1, mc, mb, p));
How do they try setting the cell to one by flipping the current bit in the grid? And I understand how when you make it a one the row parity changes, as indicated by !p but I don't understand how column parity would be affected, or what mc ^ 1 << c does -- why do you need xor and bitshifts? Same goes for the subgrid parity -- mb ^ 1 << c / 3. What is it doing?
Could someone please explain how these work?
I think I've figured this out. The idea is to sweep from top-to-bottom, left-to-right. At each step, we try moving to the next position by setting the current box either to 0 or to 1.
At the end of each row, if the parity is even, we move on to the next row; otherwise we backtrack. At the end of every third row, if the parity of all three boxes is even, we move on to the next row; otherwise we backtrack. Finally, at the end of the board, if all columns have even parity, we're done; otherwise we backtrack.
The state of the recursion at any point can be described in terms of the following five pieces of information:
The current row and column.
The parities of all the columns.
The parities of the three boxes we're currently in (each row intersects three).
The current parity of the column.
This is what the memoization table looks like:
int memo[9][9][1<<9][1<<3][2];
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
| | | | |
row --+ | | | |
col -----+ | | |
column parity ---+ | |
box parity ----------+ |
current row parity---------+
To see why there are bitshifts, let's look at the column parity. There are 9 columns, so we can write out their parities as a bitvector with 9 bits. Equivalently, we could use a nine-bit integer. 1 << 9 gives the number of possible nine-bit integers, so we can use a single integer to encode all column parities at the same time.
Why use XOR and bitshifts? Well, XORing a bitvector A with a second bitvector B inverts all the bits in A that are set in B and leaves all the other bits unchanged. If you're tracking parity, you can use XOR to toggle individual bits to represent a flip in parity; the shifting happens because we're packing multiple parity bits into a single machine word. The division you referred to is to map from a column index to the horizontal index of the box it passes through.
Hope this helps!
The algorithm in the solution is an exhaustive depth-first search with a couple optimizations. Unfortunately, the description doesn't exactly explain it.
Exhaustive search means that we try to enumerate every possible combination of bits. Depth-first means we first try to set all bits to one, then set the last one to zero, then the second-to-last, then both the last and the second-to-last, etc.
The first optimization is to backtrack as soon as we detect that parity isn't even. So, for example, as we start our search and reach the first row, we check if that row has zero parity. If it doesn't, we don't continue. We stop, backtrack, and try setting the last bit in the row to zero.
The second optimization is DP-like, in that we cache partial results and re-use them. This takes advantage of the fact that, in terms of the problem, different paths in the search can converge to the same logical state. What is a logical search state? The description in the solution begins to explain it ("begins" being the key word). In essence, the trick is that, at any given point in the search, the minimum number of additional bit flips does not depend on the exact state of the whole sudoku board, but only on the state of the various parities that we need to track. (See further explanation below.) There are 27 parities that we are tracking (accounting for 9 columns, 9 rows, and 9 3x3 boxes). Moreover, we can optimize some of them away. The parity for all higher rows, given how we perform the search, will always be even, while the parity of all lower rows, not yet touched by the search, doesn't change. We only track the parity of 1 row. By the same logic, the parity of the boxes above and below are disregarded, and we only need to track the "active" 3 boxes.
Therefore, instead of 2^9 * 2^9 * 2^9 = 134,217,728 states, we only have 2^9 * 2^1 * 2^3 = 8,192 states. Unfortunately, we need a separate cache for each depth level in the search. So, we multiply by the 81 possible depths to the search, to discover that we need an array of size 663,552. To borrow from templatetypedef:
int memo[9][9][1<<9][1<<3][2];
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
| | | | |
row --+ | | | |
col -----+ | | |
column parity ---+ | |
box parity ----------+ |
current row parity---------+
1<<9 simply means 2^9, given how integers and bit shifts work.
Further explanation: Due to how parity works, a bit flip will always flip its 3 corresponding parities. Therefore, all the permutations of sudoku boards that have the same parities can be solved with the same winning pattern of bit flips. The function 'solve' gives the answer to the problem: "Assuming you can only perform bit flips starting with the cell at position (x,y), what is the minimum number of bit flips to get a solved board." All sudoku boards with the same parities will yield the same answer. The search algorithm considers many permutations of boards. It starts modifying them from the top, counts how many bit flips it's already done, then asks the function 'solve' to see how many more it would need. If 'solve' has already been called with the same values of (x,y) and the same parities, we can just return the cached result.
The confusing part is the code that actually does the search and updates state:
/* Try setting the cell to 1. */
ref = !A[r][c] + solve(r, c + 1, mc ^ 1 << c, mb ^ 1 << c / 3, !p);
/* Try setting the cell to 0. */
ref = min(ref, A[r][c] + solve(r, c + 1, mc, mb, p));
It could be more clearly rendered as:
/* Try having this cell equal 0 */
bool areWeFlipping = A[r][c] == 1;
int nAdditionalFlipsIfCellIs0 = (areWeFlipping ? 1 : 0) + solve(r, c + 1, mc, mb, p); // Continue the search
/* Try having this cell equal 1 */
areWeFlipping = A[r][c] == 0;
// At the start, we assume the sudoku board is all zeroes, and therefore the column parity is all even. With each additional cell, we update the column parity with the value of tha cell. In this case, we assume it to be 1.
int newMc = mc ^ (1 << c); // Update the parity of column c. ^ (1 << c) means "flip the bit denoting the parity of column c"
int newMb = mb ^ (1 << (c / 3)); // Update the parity of 'active' box (c/3) (ie, if we're in column 5, we're in box 1)
int newP = p ^ 1; // Update the current row parity
int nAdditionalFlipsIfCellIs1 = (areWeFlipping ? 1 : 0) + solve(r, c + 1, newMc, newMb, newP); // Continue the search
ref = min( nAdditionalFlipsIfCellIs0, nAdditionalFlipsIfCellIs1 );
Personally, I would've implemented the two sides of the search as "flip" and "don't flip". This makes the algorithm make more sense, conceptually. It would make the second paragraph read: "Depth-first means we first try to not flip any bits, then flip the last one, then the second-to-last, then both the last and the second-to-last, etc." In addition, before we start the search, we would need to pre-calculate the values of 'mc', 'mb', and 'p' for our board, instead of passing 0's.
/* Try not flipping the current cell */
int nAdditionalFlipsIfDontFlip = 0 + solve(r, c + 1, mc, mb, p);
/* Try flipping it */
int newMc = mc ^ (1 << c);
int newMb = mb ^ (1 << (c / 3));
int newP = p ^ 1;
int nAdditionalFlipsIfFlip = 1 + solve(r, c + 1, newMc, newMb, newP);
ref = min( nAdditionalFlipsIfDontFlip, nAdditionalFlipsIfFlip );
However, this change doesn't seem to affect performance.
UPDATE
Most surprisingly, the key to the algorithm's blazing speed seems to be that the memoization array ends up rather sparse. At each depth level, there is typically 512 (sometimes, 256 or 128) states visited (out of 8192). Moreover, it is always one state per column parity. The box and row parities don't seem to matter! Omitting them from the memoization array improves performance another 30-fold. Yet, can we prove that it is always true?
In short: How to hash a free polyomino?
This could be generalized into: How to efficiently hash an arbitrary collection of 2D integer coordinates, where a set contains unique pairs of non-negative integers, and a set is considered unique if and only if no translation, rotation, or flip can map it identically to another set?
For impatient readers, please note I'm fully aware of a brute force approach. I'm looking for a better way -- or a very convincing proof that no other way can exist.
I'm working on some different algorithms to generate random polyominos. I want to test their output to determine how random they are -- i.e. are certain instances of a given order generated more frequently than others. Visually, it is very easy to identify different orientations of a free polyomino, for example the following Wikipedia illustration shows all 8 orientations of the "F" pentomino (Source):
How would one put a number on this polyomino - that is, hash a free polyomino? I don't want to depend on a prepolulated list of "named" polyominos. Broadly agreed-upon names only exists for orders 4 and 5, anyway.
This is not necessarily equavalent to enumerating all free (or one-sided, or fixed) polyominos of a given order. I only want to count the number of times a given configuration appears. If a generating algorithm never produces a certain polyomino it will simply not be counted.
The basic logic of the counting is:
testcount = 10000 // Arbitrary
order = 6 // Create hexominos in this test
hashcounts = new hashtable
for i = 1 to testcount
poly = GenerateRandomPolyomino(order)
hash = PolyHash(poly)
if hashcounts.contains(hash) then
hashcounts[hash]++
else
hashcounts[hash] = 1
What I'm looking for is an efficient PolyHash algorithm. The input polyominos are simply defined as a set of coordinates. One orientation of the T tetronimo could be, for example:
[[1,0], [0,1], [1,1], [2,1]]:
|012
-+---
0| X
1|XXX
You can assume that that input polyomino will already be normalized to be aligned against the X and Y axes and have only positive coordinates. Formally, each set:
Will have at least 1 coordinate where the x value is 0
Will have at least 1 coordinate where the y value is 0
Will not have any coordinates where x < 0 or y < 0
I'm really looking for novel algorithms that avoid the increasing number of integer operations required by a general brute force approach, described below.
Brute force
A brute force solution suggested here and here consists of hashing each set as an unsigned integer using each coordinate as a binary flag, and taking the minimum hash of all possible rotations (and in my case flips), where each rotation / flip must also be translated to the origin. This results in a total of 23 set operations for each input set to get the "free" hash:
Rotate (6x)
Flip (1x)
Translate (7x)
Hash (8x)
Find minimum of computed hashes (1x)
Where the sequence of operations to obtain each hash is:
Hash
Rotate, Translate, Hash
Rotate, Translate, Hash
Rotate, Translate, Hash
Flip, Translate, Hash
Rotate, Translate, Hash
Rotate, Translate, Hash
Rotate, Translate, Hash
Well, I came up with a completely different approach. (Also thanks to corsiKa for some helpful insights!) Rather than hashing / encoding the squares, encode the path around them. The path consists of a sequence of 'turns' (including no turn) to perform before drawing each unit segment. I think an algorithm for getting the path from the coordinates of the squares is outside the scope of this question.
This does something very important: it destroys all location and orientation information, which we don't need. It is also very easy to get the path of the flipped object: you do so by simply reversing the order of the elements. Storage is compact because each element requires only 2 bits.
It does introduce one additional constraint: the polyomino must not have fully enclosed holes. (Formally, it must be simply connected.) Most discussions of polyominos consider a hole to exist even if it is sealed only by two touching corners, as this prevents tiling with any other non-trivial polyomino. Tracing the edges is not hindered by touching corners (as in the single heptomino with a hole), but it cannot leap from one outer loop to an inner one as in the complete ring-shaped octomino:
It also produces one additional challenge: finding the minumum ordering of the encoded path loop. This is because any rotation of the path (in the sense of string rotation) is a valid encoding. To always get the same encoding we have to find the minimal (or maximal) rotation of the path instructions. Thankfully this problem has already been solved: see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexicographically_minimal_string_rotation.
Example:
If we arbitrarily assign the following values to the move operations:
No turn: 1
Turn right: 2
Turn left: 3
Here is the F pentomino traced clockwise:
An arbitrary initial encoding for the F pentomino is (starting at the bottom right corner):
2,2,3,1,2,2,3,2,2,3,2,1
The resulting minimum rotation of the encoding is
1,2,2,3,1,2,2,3,2,2,3,2
With 12 elements, this loop can be packed into 24 bits if two bits are used per instruction or only 19 bits if instructions are encoded as powers of three. Even with the 2-bit element encoding can easily fit that in a single unsigned 32 bit integer 0x6B6BAE:
1- 2- 2- 3- 1- 2- 2- 3- 2- 2- 3- 2
= 01-10-10-11-01-10-10-11-10-10-11-10
= 00000000011010110110101110101110
= 0x006B6BAE
The base-3 encoding with the start of the loop in the most significant powers of 3 is 0x5795F:
1*3^11 + 2*3^10 + 2*3^9 + 3*3^8 + 1*3^7 + 2*3^6
+ 2*3^5 + 3*3^4 + 2*3^3 + 2*3^2 + 3*3^1 + 2*3^0
= 0x0005795F
The maximum number of vertexes in the path around a polyomino of order n is 2n + 2. For 2-bit encoding the number of bits is twice the number of moves, so the maximum bits needed is 4n + 4. For base-3 encoding it's:
Where the "gallows" is the ceiling function. Accordingly any polyomino up to order 9 can be encoded in a single 32 bit integer. Knowing this you can choose your platform-specific data structure accordingly for the fastest hash comparison given the maximum order of the polyominos you'll be hashing.
You can reduce it down to 8 hash operations without the need to flip, rotate, or re-translate.
Note that this algorithm assumes you are operating with coordinates relative to itself. That is to say it's not in the wild.
Instead of applying operations that flip, rotate, and translate, instead simply change the order in which you hash.
For instance, let us take the F pent above. In the simple example, let us presume the hash operation was something like this:
int hashPolySingle(Poly p)
int hash = 0
for x = 0 to p.width
fory = 0 to p.height
hash = hash * 31 + p.contains(x,y) ? 1 : 0
hashPolySingle = hash
int hashPoly(Poly p)
int hash = hashPolySingle(p)
p.rotateClockwise() // assume it translates inside
hash = hash * 31 + hashPolySingle(p)
// keep rotating for all 4 oritentations
p.flip()
// hash those 4
Instead of applying the function to all 8 different orientations of the poly, I would apply 8 different hash functions to 1 poly.
int hashPolySingle(Poly p, bool flip, int corner)
int hash = 0
int xstart, xstop, ystart, ystop
bool yfirst
switch(corner)
case 1: xstart = 0
xstop = p.width
ystart = 0
ystop = p.height
yfirst = false
break
case 2: xstart = p.width
xstop = 0
ystart = 0
ystop = p.height
yfirst = true
break
case 3: xstart = p.width
xstop = 0
ystart = p.height
ystop = 0
yfirst = false
break
case 4: xstart = 0
xstop = p.width
ystart = p.height
ystop = 0
yfirst = true
break
default: error()
if(flip) swap(xstart, xstop)
if(flip) swap(ystart, ystop)
if(yfirst)
for y = ystart to ystop
for x = xstart to xstop
hash = hash * 31 + p.contains(x,y) ? 1 : 0
else
for x = xstart to xstop
for y = ystart to ystop
hash = hash * 31 + p.contains(x,y) ? 1 : 0
hashPolySingle = hash
Which is then called in the 8 different ways. You could also encapsulate hashPolySingle in for loop around the corner, and around the flip or not. All the same.
int hashPoly(Poly p)
// approach from each of the 4 corners
int hash = hashPolySingle(p, false, 1)
hash = hash * 31 + hashPolySingle(p, false, 2)
hash = hash * 31 + hashPolySingle(p, false, 3)
hash = hash * 31 + hashPolySingle(p, false, 4)
// flip it
hash = hash * 31 + hashPolySingle(p, true, 1)
hash = hash * 31 + hashPolySingle(p, true, 2)
hash = hash * 31 + hashPolySingle(p, true, 3)
hash = hash * 31 + hashPolySingle(p, true, 4)
hashPoly = hash
In this way, you're implicitly rotating the poly from each direction, but you're not actually performing the rotation and translation. It performs the 8 hashes, which seem to be entirely necessary in order to accurately hash all 8 orientations, but wastes no passes over the poly that are not actually doing hashes. This seems to me to be the most elegant solution.
Note that there may be a better hashPolySingle() algorithm to use. Mine uses a Cartesian exhaustion algorithm that is on the order of O(n^2). Its worst case scenario is an L shape, which would cause there to be an N/2 * (N-1)/2 sized square for only N elements, or an efficiency of 1:(N-1)/4, compared to an I shape which would be 1:1. It may also be that the inherent invariant imposed by the architecture would actually make it less efficient than the naive algorithm.
My suspicion is that the above concern can be alleviated by simulating the Cartesian exhaustion by converting the set of nodes into an bi-directional graph that can be traversed, causing the nodes to be hit in the same order as my much more naive hashing algorithm, ignoring the empty spaces. This will bring the algorithm down to O(n) as the graph should be able to be constructed in O(n) time. Because I haven't done this, I can't say for sure, which is why I say it's only a suspicion, but there should be a way to do it.
Here's my DFS (depth first search) explained:
Start with the top-most cell (left-most as a tiebreaker). Mark it as visited. Every time you visit a cell, check all four directions for unvisited neighbors. Always check the four directions in this order: up, left, down, right.
Example
In this example, up and left fail, but down succeeds. So far our output is 001, and we recursively search the "down" cell.
We mark our new current cell as visited (and we'll finish searching the original cell when we finish searching this cell). Here, up=0, left=1.
We search the left-most cell and there are no unvisted neighbors (up=0, left=0, down=0, right=0). Our total output so far is 001010000.
We continue our search of the second cell. down=0, right=1. We search the cell to the right.
up=0, left=0, down=1. Search the down cell: all 0s. Total output so far is 001010000010010000. Then, we return from the down cell...
right=0, return. return. (Now, we are at the starting cell.) right=0. Done!
So, the total output is 20 (N*4) bits: 00101000001001000000.
Encoding improvement
But, we can save some bits.
The last visited cell will always encode 0000 for its four directions. So, don't encode the last visited cell to save 4 bits.
Another improvement: if you reached a cell by moving left, don't check that cells right-side. So, we only need 3 bits per cell, except 4 bits for the first cell, and 0 for the last cell.
The first cell will never have an up, or left neighbor, so omit these bits. So the first cell takes 2 bits.
So, with these improvements, we use only N*3-4 bits (e.g. 5 cells -> 11 bits; 9 cells -> 23 bits).
If you really want, you can compact a little more by noting that exactly N-1 bits will be "1".
Caveat
Yes, you'll need to encode all 8 rotations/flips of the polyomino and choose the least to get a canonical encoding.
I suspect this will still be faster than the outline approach. Also, holes in the polyomino shouldn't be a problem.
I worked on the same problem recently. I solved the problem fairly simply by
(1) generate a unique ID for a polyomino, such that each identical poly would have the same UID. For example, find the bounding box, normalize the corner of the bounding box, and collect the set of non-empty cells.
(2) generate all possible permutations by rotating (and flipping, if appropriate) a polyomino, and look for duplicates.
The advantage of this brute approach, other than it's simplicity, is that it still works if the
polys are distinguishable in some other way, for example if some of them are colored or numbered.
You can set up something like a trie to uniquely identify (and not just hash) your polyomino. Take your normalized polyomino and set up a binary search tree, where the root branches on whether (0,0) is has a set pixel, the next level branches on whether (0,1) has a set pixel, and so on. When you look up a polyomino, simply normalize it and then walk the tree. If you find it in the trie, then you're done. If not, assign that polyomino a unique id (just increment a counter), generate all 8 possible rotations and flips, then add those 8 to the trie.
On a trie miss, you'll have to generate all the rotations and reflections. But on a trie hit it should cost less (O(k^2) for k-polyominos).
To make lookups even more efficient, you could use a couple bits at a time and use a wider tree instead of a binary tree.
A valid hash function, if you're really afraid of hash collisions, is to make a hash function x + order * y for coordinates and then loop trough all the coordinates of a piece, adding (order ^ i) * hash(coord[i]) to the piece hash. That way, you can guarantee you won't get any hash collisions.
On Page 140 of Programming Pearls, 2nd Edition, Jon proposed an implementation of sets with bit vectors.
We'll turn now to two final structures that exploit the fact that our sets represent integers. Bit vectors are an old friend from Column 1. Here are their private data and functions:
enum { BITSPERWORD = 32, SHIFT = 5, MASK = 0x1F };
int n, hi, *x;
void set(int i) { x[i>>SHIFT] |= (1<<(i & MASK)); }
void clr(int i) { x[i>>SHIFT] &= ~(1<<(i & MASK)); }
int test(int i) { return x[i>>SHIFT] &= (1<<(i & MASK)); }
As I gathered, the central idea of a bit vector to represent an integer set, as described in Column 1, is that the i-th bit is turned on if and only if the integer i is in the set.
But I am really at a loss at the algorithms involved in the above three functions. And the book doesn't give an explanation.
I can only get that i & MASK is to get the lower 5 bits of i, while i>>SHIFT is to move i 5 bits toward the right.
Anybody would elaborate more on these algorithms? Bit operations always seem a myth to me, :(
Bit Fields and You
I'll use a simple example to explain the basics. Say you have an unsigned integer with four bits:
[0][0][0][0] = 0
You can represent any number here from 0 to 15 by converting it to base 2. Say we have the right end be the smallest:
[0][1][0][1] = 5
So the first bit adds 1 to the total, the second adds 2, the third adds 4, and the fourth adds 8. For example, here's 8:
[1][0][0][0] = 8
So What?
Say you want to represent a binary state in an application-- if some option is enabled, if you should draw some element, and so on. You probably don't want to use an entire integer for each one of these- it'd be using a 32 bit integer to store one bit of information. Or, to continue our example in four bits:
[0][0][0][1] = 1 = ON
[0][0][0][0] = 0 = OFF //what a huge waste of space!
(Of course, the problem is more pronounced in real life since 32-bit integers look like this:
[0][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][0] = 0
The answer to this is to use a bit field. We have a collection of properties (usually related ones) which we will flip on and off using bit operations. So, say, you might have 4 different lights on a piece of hardware that you want to be on or off.
3 2 1 0
[0][0][0][0] = 0
(Why do we start with light 0? I'll explain this in a second.)
Note that this is an integer, and is stored as an integer, but is used to represent multiple states for multiple objects. Crazy! Say we turn lights 2 and 1 on:
3 2 1 0
[0][1][1][0] = 6
The important thing you should note here: There's probably no obvious reason why lights 2 and 1 being on should equal six, and it may not be obvious how we would do anything with this scheme of information storage. It doesn't look more obvious if you add more bits:
3 2 1 0
[1][1][1][0] = 0xE \\what?
Why do we care about this? Do we have exactly one state for each number between 0 and 15?How are we going to manage this without some insane series of switch statements? Ugh...
The Light at the End
So if you've worked with binary arithmetic a bit before, you might realize that the relationship between the numbers on the left and the numbers on the right is, of course, base 2. That is:
1*(23) + 1*(22) + 1*(21) +0 *(20) = 0xE
So each light is present in the exponent of each term of the equation. If the light is on, there is a 1 next to its term- if the light is off, there is a zero. Take the time to convince yourself that there is exactly one integer between 0 and 15 that corresponds to each state in this numbering scheme.
Bit operators
Now that we have this done, let's take a second to see what bitshifting does to integers in this setup.
[0][0][0][1] = 1
When you shift bits to the left or the right in an integer, it literally moves the bits left and right. (Note: I 100% disavow this explanation for negative numbers! There be dragons!)
1<<2 = 4
[0][1][0][0] = 4
4>>1 = 2
[0][0][1][0] = 2
You will encounter similar behavior when shifting numbers represented with more than one bit. Also, it shouldn't be hard to convince yourself that x>>0 or x<<0 is just x. Doesn't shift anywhere.
This probably explains the naming scheme of the Shift operators to anyone who wasn't familiar with them.
Bitwise operations
This representation of numbers in binary can also be used to shed some light on the operations of bitwise operators on integers. Each bit in the first number is xor-ed, and-ed, or or-ed with its fellow number. Take a second to venture to wikipedia and familiarize yourself with the function of these Boolean operators - I'll explain how they function on numbers but I don't want to rehash the general idea in great detail.
...
Welcome back! Let's start by examining the effect of the OR (|) operator on two integers, stored in four bit.
OR OPERATOR ON:
[1][0][0][1] = 0x9
[1][1][0][0] = 0xC
________________
[1][1][0][1] = 0xD
Tough! This is a close analogue to the truth table for the boolean OR operator. Notice that each column ignores the adjacent columns and simply fills in the result column with the result of the first bit and the second bit OR'd together. Note also that the value of anything or'd with 1 is 1 in that particular column. Anything or'd with zero remains the same.
The table for AND (&) is interesting, though somewhat inverted:
AND OPERATOR ON:
[1][0][0][1] = 0x9
[1][1][0][0] = 0xC
________________
[1][0][0][0] = 0x8
In this case we do the same thing- we perform the AND operation with each bit in a column and put the result in that bit. No column cares about any other column.
Important lesson about this, which I invite you to verify by using the diagram above: anything AND-ed with zero is zero. Also, equally important- nothing happens to numbers that are AND-ed with one. They stay the same.
The final table, XOR, has behavior which I hope you all find predictable by now.
XOR OPERATOR ON:
[1][0][0][1] = 0x9
[1][1][0][0] = 0xC
________________
[0][1][0][1] = 0x5
Each bit is being XOR'd with its column, yadda yadda, and so on. But look closely at the first row and the second row. Which bits changed? (Half of them.) Which bits stayed the same? (No points for answering this one.)
The bit in the first row is being changed in the result if (and only if) the bit in the second row is 1!
The one lightbulb example!
So now we have an interesting set of tools we can use to flip individual bits. Let's go back to the lightbulb example and focus only on the first lightbulb.
0
[?] \\We don't know if it's one or zero while coding
We know that we have an operation that can always make this bit equal to one- the OR 1 operator.
0|1 = 1
1|1 = 1
So, ignoring the rest of the bulbs, we could do this
4_bit_lightbulb_integer |= 1;
and know for sure that we did nothing but set the first lightbulb to ON.
3 2 1 0
[0][0][0][?] = 0 or 1? \\4_bit_lightbulb_integer
[0][0][0][1] = 1
________________
[0][0][0][1] = 0x1
Similarly, we can AND the number with zero. Well- not quite zero- we don't want to affect the state of the other bits, so we will fill them in with ones.
I'll use the unary (one-argument) operator for bit negation. The ~ (NOT) bitwise operator flips all of the bits in its argument. ~(0X1):
[0][0][0][1] = 0x1
________________
[1][1][1][0] = 0xE
We will use this in conjunction with the AND bit below.
Let's do 4_bit_lightbulb_integer & 0xE
3 2 1 0
[0][1][0][?] = 4 or 5? \\4_bit_lightbulb_integer
[1][1][1][0] = 0xE
________________
[0][1][0][0] = 0x4
We're seeing a lot of integers on the right-hand-side which don't have any immediate relevance. You should get used to this if you deal with bit fields a lot. Look at the left-hand side. The bit on the right is always zero and the other bits are unchanged. We can turn off light 0 and ignore everything else!
Finally, you can use the XOR bit to flip the first bit selectively!
3 2 1 0
[0][1][0][?] = 4 or 5? \\4_bit_lightbulb_integer
[0][0][0][1] = 0x1
________________
[0][1][0][*] = 4 or 5?
We don't actually know what the value of * is now- just that flipped from whatever ? was.
Combining Bit Shifting and Bitwise operations
The interesting fact about these two operations is when taken together they allow you to manipulate selective bits.
[0][0][0][1] = 1 = 1<<0
[0][0][1][0] = 2 = 1<<1
[0][1][0][0] = 4 = 1<<2
[1][0][0][0] = 8 = 1<<3
Hmm. Interesting. I'll mention the negation operator here (~) as it's used in a similar way to produce the needed bit values for ANDing stuff in bit fields.
[1][1][1][0] = 0xE = ~(1<<0)
[1][1][0][1] = 0xD = ~(1<<1)
[1][0][1][1] = 0xB = ~(1<<2)
[0][1][1][1] = 0X7 = ~(1<<3)
Are you seeing an interesting relationship between the shift value and the corresponding lightbulb position of the shifted bit?
The canonical bitshift operators
As alluded to above, we have an interesting, generic method for turning on and off specific lights with the bit-shifters above.
To turn on a bulb, we generate the 1 in the right position using bit shifting, and then OR it with the current lightbulb positions. Say we want to turn on light 3, and ignore everything else. We need to get a bit shifting operation that ORs
3 2 1 0
[?][?][?][?] \\all we know about these values at compile time is where they are!
and 0x8
[1][0][0][0] = 0x8
Which is easy, thanks to bitshifting! We'll pick the number of the light and switch the value over:
1<<3 = 0x8
and then:
4_bit_lightbulb_integer |= 0x8;
3 2 1 0
[1][?][?][?] \\the ? marks have not changed!
And we can guarantee that the bit for the 3rd lightbulb is set to 1 and that nothing else has changed.
Clearing a bit works similarly- we'll use the negated bits table above to, say, clear light 2.
~(1<<2) = 0xB = [1][0][1][1]
4_bit_lightbulb_integer & 0xB:
3 2 1 0
[?][?][?][?]
[1][0][1][1]
____________
[?][0][?][?]
The XOR method of flipping bits is the same idea as the OR one.
So the canonical methods of bit switching are this:
Turn on the light i:
4_bit_lightbulb_integer|=(1<<i)
Turn off light i:
4_bit_lightbulb_integer&=~(1<<i)
Flip light i:
4_bit_lightbulb_integer^=(1<<i)
Wait, how do I read these?
In order to check a bit we can simply zero out all of the bits except for the one we care about. We'll then check to see if the resulting value is greater than zero- since this is the only value that could possibly be nonzero, it will make the entire integer nonzero if and only if it is nonzero. For example, to check bit 2:
1<<2:
[0][1][0][0]
4_bit_lightbulb_integer:
[?][?][?][?]
1<<2 & 4_bit_lightbulb_integer:
[0][?][0][0]
Remember from the previous examples that the value of ? didn't change. Remember also that anything AND 0 is 0. So, we can say for sure that if this value is greater than zero, the switch at position 2 is true and the lightbulb is zero. Similarly, if the value is off, the value of the entire thing will be zero.
(You can alternately shift the entire value of 4_bit_lightbulb_integer over by i bits and AND it with 1. I don't remember off the top of my head if one is faster than the other but I doubt it.)
So the canonical checking function:
Check if bit i is on:
if (4_bit_lightbulb_integer & 1<<i) {
\\do whatever
}
The specifics
Now that we have a complete set of tools for bitwise operations, we can look at the specific example here. This is basically the same idea- except a much more concise and powerful way of executing it. Let's look at this function:
void set(int i) { x[i>>SHIFT] |= (1<<(i & MASK)); }
From the canonical implementation I'm going to make a guess that this is trying to set some bits to 1! Let's take an integer and look at what's going on here if i feed the value 0x32 (50 in decimal) into i:
x[0x32>>5] |= (1<<(0x32 & 0x1f))
Well, that's a mess.. let's dissect this operation on the right. For convenience, pretend there are 24 more irrelevant zeros, since these are both 32 bit integers.
...[0][0][0][1][1][1][1][1] = 0x1F
...[0][0][1][1][0][0][1][0] = 0x32
________________________
...[0][0][0][1][0][0][1][0] = 0x12
It looks like everything is being cut off at the boundary on top where 1s turn into zeros. This technique is called Bit Masking. Interestingly, the boundary here restricts the resulting values to be between 0 and 31... Which is exactly the number of bit positions we have for a 32 bit integer!
x[0x32>>5] |= (1<<(0x12))
Let's look at the other half.
...[0][0][1][1][0][0][1][0] = 0x32
Shift five bits to the right:
...[0][0][0][0][0][0][0][1] = 0x01
Note that this transformation exactly destroyed all information from the first part of the function- we have 32-5 = 27 remaining bits which could be nonzero. This indicates which of 227 integers in the array of integers are selected. So the simplified equation is now:
x[1] |= (1<<0x12)
This just looks like the canonical bit-setting operation! We've just chosen
So the idea is to use the first 27 bits to pick an integer to shift and the last five bits indicate which bit of the 32 in that integer to shift.
The key to understanding what's going on is to recognize that BITSPERWORD = 2SHIFT. Thus, x[i>>SHIFT] finds which 32-bit element of the array x has the bit corresponding to i. (By shifting i 5 bits to the right, you're simply dividing by 32.) Once you have located the correct element of x, the lower 5 bits of i can then be used to find which particular bit of x[i>>SHIFT] corresponds to i. That's what i & MASK does; by shifting 1 by that number of bits, you move the bit corresponding to 1 to the exact position within x[i>>SHIFT] that corresponds to the ith bit in x.
Here's a bit more of an explanation:
Imagine that we want capacity for N bits in our bit vector. Since each int holds 32 bits, we will need (N + 31) / 32 int values for our storage (that is, N/32 rounded up). Within each int value, we will adopt the convention that bits are ordered from least significant to most significant. We will also adopt the convention that the first 32 bits of our vector are in x[0], the next 32 bits are in x[1], and so forth. Here's the memory layout we are using (showing the bit index in our bit vector corresponding to each bit of memory):
+----+----+-------+----+----+----+
x[0]: | 31 | 30 | . . . | 02 | 01 | 00 |
+----+----+-------+----+----+----+
x[1]: | 63 | 62 | . . . | 34 | 33 | 32 |
+----+----+-------+----+----+----+
etc.
Our first step is to allocate the necessary storage capacity:
x = new int[(N + BITSPERWORD - 1) >> SHIFT]
(We could make provision for dynamically expanding this storage, but that would just add complexity to the explanation.)
Now suppose we want to access bit i (either to set it, clear it, or just to know its current value). We need to first figure out which element of x to use. Since there are 32 bits per int value, this is easy:
subscript for x = i / 32
Making use of the enum constants, the x element we want is:
x[i >> SHIFT]
(Think of this as a 32-bit-wide window into our N-bit vector.) Now we have to find the specific bit corresponding to i. Looking at the memory layout, it's not hard to figure out that the first (rightmost) bit in the window corresponds to bit index 32 * (i >> SHIFT). (The window starts afteri >> SHIFT slots in x, and each slot has 32 bits.) Since that's the first bit in the window (position 0), then the bit we're interested in is is at position
i - (32 * (i >> SHIFT))
in the windows. With a little experimenting, you can convince yourself that this expression is always equal to i % 32 (actually, that's one definition of the mod operator) which, in turn, is always equal to i & MASK. Since this last expression is the fastest way to calculate what we want, that's what we'll use.
From here, the rest is pretty simple. We start with a single bit in the least-significant position of the window (that is, the constant 1), and move it to the left by i & MASK bits to get it to the position in the window corresponding to bit i in the bit vector. This is where the expression
1 << (i & MASK)
comes from. With the bit now moved to where we want it, we can use this as a mask to set, clear, or query the value of the bit at that position in x[i>>SHIFT] and we know that we're actually setting, clearing, or querying the value of bit i in our bit vector.
If you store your bits in an array of n words you can imagine them to be layed out as a matrix with n rows and 32 columns (BITSPERWORD):
3 0
1 0
0 xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
1 xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
2 xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
....
n xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
To get the k-th bit you divide k by 32. The (integer) result will give you the row (word) the bit is in, the reminder will give you which bit is within the word.
Dividing by 2^p can be done simply by shifting p postions to the right. The reminder can be obtained by getting the p rightmost bits (i.e the bitwise AND with (2^p - 1)).
In C terms:
#define div32(k) ((k) >> 5)
#define mod32(k) ((k) & 31)
#define word_the_bit_is_in(k) div32(k)
#define bit_within_word(k) mod32(k)
Hope it helps.
If there is any number in the range [0 .. 264] which can not be generated by any XOR composition of one or more numbers from a given set, is there a efficient method which prints at least one of the unreachable numbers, or terminates with the information, that there are no unreachable numbers?
Does this problem have a name? Is it similar to another problem or do you have any idea, how to solve it?
Each number can be treated as a vector in the vector space (Z/2)^64 over Z/2. You basically want to know if the vectors given span the whole space, and if not, to produce one not spanned (except that the span always includes the zero vector – you'll have to special case this if you really want one or more). This can be accomplished via Gaussian elimination.
Over this particular vector space, Gaussian elimination is pretty simple. Start with an empty set for the basis. Do the following until there are no more numbers. (1) Throw away all of the numbers that are zero. (2) Scan the lowest bits set of the remaining numbers (lowest bit for x is x & ~(x - 1)) and choose one with the lowest order bit set. (3) Put it in the basis. (4) Update all of the other numbers with that same bit set by XORing it with the new basis element. No remaining number has this bit or any lower order bit set, so we terminate after 64 iterations.
At the end, if there are 64 elements, then the subspace is everything. Otherwise, we went fewer than 64 iterations and skipped a bit: the number with only this bit on is not spanned.
To special-case zero: zero is an option if and only if we never throw away a number (i.e., the input vectors are independent).
Example over 4-bit numbers
Start with 0110, 0011, 1001, 1010. Choose 0011 because it has the ones bit set. Basis is now {0011}. Other vectors are {0110, 1010, 1010}; note that the first 1010 = 1001 XOR 0011.
Choose 0110 because it has the twos bit set. Basis is now {0011, 0110}. Other vectors are {1100, 1100}.
Choose 1100. Basis is now {0011, 0110, 1100}. Other vectors are {0000}.
Throw away 0000. We're done. We skipped the high order bit, so 1000 is not in the span.
As rap music points out you can think of the problem as finding a base in a vector space. However, it is not necessary to actually solve it completely, just to find if it is possible to do or not, and if not: give an example value (that is a binary vector) that can not be described in terms of the supplied set.
This can be done in O(n^2) in terms of the size of the input set. This should be compared to Gauss elimination which is O(n^3), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_elimination.
64 bits are no problem at all. With the example python code below 1000 bits with a set with 1000 random values from 0 to 2^1000-1 takes about a second.
Instead of performing Gauss elimination it's enough to find out if we can rewrite the matrix of all bits on triangular form, such as: (for the 4 bit version:)
original triangular
1110 14 1110 14
1011 11 111 7
111 7 11 3
11 3 1 1
1 1 0 0
The solution works like this: First all original values with the same most significant bit are places together in a list of lists. For our example:
[[14,11],[7],[3],[1],[]]
The last empty entry represents that there were no zeros in the original list. Now, take a value from the first entry and replace that entry with a list containing only that number:
[[14],[7],[3],[1],[]]
and then store the xor of the kept number with all the removed entries at the right place in the vector. For our case we have 14^11 = 5 so:
[[14],[7,5],[3],[1],[]]
The trick is that we do not need to scan and update all other values, just the values with the same most significant bit.
Now process the item 7,5 in the same way. Keep 7, add 7^5 = 2 to the list:
[[14],[7],[3,2],[1],[]]
Now 3,2 leaves [3] and adds 1 :
[[14],[7],[3],[1,1],[]]
And 1,1 leaves [1] and adds 0 to the last entry allowing values with no set bit:
[[14],[7],[3],[1],[0]]
If in the end the vector contains at least one number at each vector entry (as in our example) the base is complete and any number fits.
Here's the complete code:
# return leading bit index ir -1 for 0.
# example 1 -> 0
# example 9 -> 3
def leadbit(v):
# there are other ways, yes...
return len(bin(v))-3 if v else -1
def examinebits(baselist,nbitbuckets):
# index 1 is least significant bit.
# index 0 represent the value 0
bitbuckets=[[] for x in range(nbitbuckets+1)]
for j in baselist:
bitbuckets[leadbit(j)+1].append(j)
for i in reversed(range(len(bitbuckets))):
if bitbuckets[i]:
# leave just the first value of all in bucket i
bitbuckets[i],newb=[bitbuckets[i][0]],bitbuckets[i][1:]
# distribute the subleading values into their buckets
for ni in newb:
q=bitbuckets[i][0]^ni
lb=leadbit(q)+1
if lb:
bitbuckets[lb].append(q)
else:
bitbuckets[0]=[0]
else:
v=2**(i-1) if i else 0
print "bit missing: %d. Impossible value: %s == %d"%(i-1,bin(v),v)
return (bitbuckets,[i])
return (bitbuckets,[])
Example use: (8 bit)
import random
nbits=8
basesize=8
topval=int(2**nbits)
# random set of values to try:
basel=[random.randint(0,topval-1) for dummy in range(basesize)]
bl,ii=examinebits(basel,nbits)
bl is now the triangular list of values, up to the point where it was not possible (in that case). The missing bit (if any) is found in ii[0].
For the following tried set of values: [242, 242, 199, 197, 177, 177, 133, 36] the triangular version is:
base value: 10110001 177
base value: 1110110 118
base value: 100100 36
base value: 10000 16
first missing bit: 3 val: 8
( the below values where not completely processed )
base value: 10 2
base value: 1 1
base value: 0 0
The above list were printed like this:
for i in range(len(bl)):
bb=bl[len(bl)-i-1]
if ii and len(bl)-ii[0] == i:
print "example missing bit:" ,(ii[0]-1), "val:", 2**(ii[0]-1)
print "( the below values where not completely processed )"
if len(bb):
b=bb[0]
print ("base value: %"+str(nbits)+"s") %(bin(b)[2:]), b